According to Leonard Bishop in Dare to Be a Great Writer, there are two types of major characters:
1. Those that are larger than life, and who increase or diminish in stature through emotional/mental experiences and adventures
2. Those that are "average" and are unexpectedly plunged into serious personal conflict and adventures. Depending upon their natures, they either grow in stature or become less than what they were when they were introduced.
These types seem broad enough that it's hard to disagree with them, though there have been examples of less than average characters, such as Algernon in Flowers for Algernon and Forrest Gump. Unless these are examples of larger than life characters?
So, what type of characters do you write? Why?
As always, any topic that will help us improve our writing is fair game in these discussions, so feel free to bring up any of your writing concerns.
Let's talk.
The group No Whine, Just Champagne will meet here at this article for a live discussion about writing and the writing life on Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 9:00pm ET (8pm CT, 7pm MT, 6pm PT). Hope to see you, but if you can't make it then, the discussion will continue during the days afterward, so please stop by and tell us what you think.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
If my story has just one or a few characters, then the story itself dictates whether the character needs to be average, mediocre, or a little larger than life.
In something bigger, with a larger cast of characters, then you need both types to compliment and counter each others personality to draw the personality out of the story.
On the other hand, ordinary people who are forced into extraordinary circumstances and forced to find the courage and intelligence and strength to get the job done . . . well, that's compelling.
It's the quick and easy way to get the teens and prepubescent boys (and men) interesting.
But what works in the movies can easily fall flat for many readers in the book.
Movie - quick action, little time for thought. Book - takes much longer to read, more absorption of what's going on, reading between the lines, and there needs to be a pretty good reason why nobody else in the world can do it, or that person is just thrown into the spot with no choice but to move on and do what they have to do, even though a million others could do it too. But give me a reason why that particular person ended up in that spot or it might seem like a bad movie plot.
Some writing coaches suggest working against a character's strength. If the character is physically gifted, put her in a situation where her physical gifts don't help and she has to rely on her intelligence. Or if the character is intelligent, put her in a situation where she has to rely on her feeble physical abilities.
The story is driven by the women, all very ordinary, especially Kate. And that was the point -- to tell a story of an ordinary woman who struggled during prosperous times when everyone else was doing well, but who managed to prosper in the dark times when everyone else was having difficulties.
A character like Superman is not larger than life because he has superhuman strength and speed, it's because of his weaknesses , the character flaws, that counter his strengths and that he succeeds despite - his shyness and too-goodness, his becoming a bubbling fool every time he's near the woman he fell instantly in love with. The cryptonite is just a plot obstacle.
I don't know if the main character could be considered larger than life. Probably not. Just a man with an unfortunate past, a despicable present, and an unknown but all too known future.
In my fourth novel, I did have a couple of character who were far from ordinary but they weren't larger than life, either. They were simply a different kind of "life size." I also had a second pair of very down to earth characters to show a contrast with the more ethereal characters. That was fun.
And larger than life is more than just doing big things.